As Clinton launches her second presidential bid, serious questions remain about her positions on key economic and foreign policy issues.

April 11, 2015

Hillary Clinton speaks at an event for the Center for American Progress. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais).

Ready to fight back?

Sign up for Take Action Now and we’ll send you three meaningful actions every Tuesday.

Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue.

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

Support Progressive Journalism

The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.

Fight Back!

Sign up for Take Action Now and we’ll send you three meaningful actions you can each week.

Travel With The Nation

Be the first to hear about Nation Travels destinations, and explore the world with kindred spirits.

Sign up for our Wine Club today.

Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?

This Sunday, Hillary Clinton is expected to announce her candidacy for president of the United States. This should surprise exactly nobody. The “prolonged prologue” to her second presidential bid, The New York Times drolly noted, has reached its “suspenseless conclusion.”

By all accounts, Clinton’s rollout is expected to be a tightly choreographed sequence of events. First a series of promotional messages on Twitter, Facebook, and other social media. Then meet-and-greets with small crowds in Iowa and New Hampshire. Meanwhile, Clinton will gradually grow her campaign staff, which is headquartered in Brooklyn and is expected to raise and spend upwards of $2 billion during the election.

In this first phase, Clinton will be cautiously testing her early campaign themes, which will focus on reviving the economic fortunes of the middle class and her status as a trailblazer for women. As campaign subjects go, Clinton could do a lot worse (remember the Red Phone ads?). Nonetheless, the rollout already carries the stilted air of an overproduced commercial—not a vigorous campaign. The Nation has consistently called for a contested primary in order to engage the full range of urgent issues before the American public. Candidate Clinton should be pressed hard on the issues by rivals, the media and voters. Towards that end, we polled editors and contributors and compiled the following first draft of questions that Hillary Clinton should answer promptly and with candor.

Jobs: Overall, the jobless rate is nearly back to what it was before the recession began. But if we dig deeper, the recovery looks remarkably uneven. Unemployment among black Americans—11 percent in the fourth quarter of 2014—remains higher than the overall rate at the peak of the recession and well above the rate among black Americans before the recession began. Similar disparities exist between cities and states. Progressive economists have called for new, targeted public investment in job creation, to get us to full employment. What public investments will you demand so that all of America recovers from the 2007 crash? Can there be a second stimulus for the people and communities left behind? (Kai Wright)

Inequality: A key question all candidates should address is how can we boost hourly wages for the large majority of American workers who have seen their pay stagnate even as the economy grew over the past three-and-a-half decades. This crisis is at the root of nearly every troubling economic trend with us today—rising income inequality, persistent poverty, failure to boost economic mobility, and increasingly anemic recoveries following economic downturns. There is no one silver policy bullet that would get wage growth in gear. It will take an intentional reorientation of policy across the spectrum, including tax and budget policies, regulations, trade and macroeconomic policy. In this mix, where does Hillary Clinton see labor reforms like strengthening workers’ ability to bargain collectively and paid family sick leave? How would she work with Congress to pass such measures? (Josh Bivens, Economic Policy Institute)

4

5

Student debt: Student loan debt-strikers have launched an increasingly visible campaign asking the Department of Education to cancel all federal debt incurred by students. Elizabeth Warren has also laid out a clear plan for student-loan debt relief that goes well beyond the measures enacted by the Obama administration. Her plan, which gained the support of every Senate Democrat and even three Republicans before falling victim to a filibuster last year, is simple: Allow any student with federal loans to refinance at government subsidized rates, currently quite low at below 4 percent. This would cost the government money, but Warren proposes enacting the Buffett rule (which imposes a minimum 30 percent effective tax rate on people who earn over $1 million annually) to pay for it. Would Clinton support such measures that would, as Warren puts it, invest in students and not billionaires? (George Zornick)

Education: Secretary Clinton, would you please state where you stand on the expansion of privately managed charter schools, which drain funding from public schools that accept all children, and on whether you think the federal government should continue to require every student in grades 3-8 to take standardized tests every year, a practice unknown in the world’s highest-performing nations? (Diane Ravitch, Steinhardt School at New York University)

Wall Street and Washington: Last year in an op-ed for Politico, Senator Elizabeth Warren warned that a disproportionate number of people from the banking industry have been appointed to policy-making positions within the government. She singled out Citigroup in particular, noting that three of the last four Treasury secretaries, beginning with Robert Rubin, whom your husband appointed, were former Citigroup CEOs. Do you think Citigroup or Wall Street in general is overrepresented in Washington? And if so, what would you do about it? (Richard Kim)

Pentagon Spending: Along with his goal of ending two wars, Obama came into office with the intent of reforming the contracting process to rein in Pentagon waste. He successfully got the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act passed in his first year in office. But it turned out to have loopholes big enough to drive the proverbial truck through—like giving the Pentagon the option of issuing a waiver to jettison any recommended cost-saving it doesn’t like. What do you plan to do to make sure the taxpayers don’t get rolled by the defense lobbyists again? (Miriam Pemberton, Institute for Policy Studies)

Immigration: Our broken immigration reform system is not working for anyone in America. Most importantly, we are tearing families apart and preventing hard-working families from contributing to the American Dream fully—something they desperately want to do. There are three commitments any Democratic candidate could make. First, immediately extend the expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA) programs for three years, adding additional categories of immigrants to the programs. Second, ensure just and humane enforcement that prioritizes keeping families together through agency accountability at the national and local level, along with robust community participation. Finally, send Congress a comprehensive immigration reform bill that keeps families together—and do it in the first 100 days of the next presidency. Will Hillary Clinton make these commitments to voters? (Deepak Bhargava, Center for Community Change)

Iran: You sounded a cautious note in your statement of support for the recent framework agreement for a nuclear deal between world powers and Iran. “I know well that the devil is always in the details in this kind of negotiation,” you said, calling for a deal to “be part of a comprehensive strategy to check Iran’s regional ambitions.” Both the Iranians and the US have said a nuclear deal would be a discrete agreement, though further understandings could follow. What measures did you have in mind, in the case of a deal, to curtail Iran’s influence? What specific details are you looking for in a deal and what would be your red lines? Would you honor a deal struck by Obama even if it didn’t meet all your conditions? (Ali Gharib)

NATO Expansion: Do you think NATO expansion, which began under President Bill Clinton, has played a positive role in contributing to the security and stability of East and Central Europe? If so, why?” (Katrina vanden Heuvel)

Russia: Do you agree with your friend and former Senate colleague John McCain who has said that “Mr. Putin wants to revive the old Russian empire”? (Katrina vanden Heuvel)

US/Israel Relations: In May 2014, you spoke to the American Jewish Committee. The Forward, the leading Jewish weekly in the United States, described the speech as being designed to reassure the pro-Israel community that “a Clinton presidency would smooth over tensions ruffled by the Obama White House.” Political tensions with Israel have only gotten worse. Fourteen percent of Americans say Israel’s interests should be our top concern—as president would you join them by increasing US military or economic or diplomatic support for Israel to ease those tensions? Or would you hold Israel accountable for its human-rights violations, in keeping with the 31 percent who believe human rights is the most important factor in the conflict? (Phyllis Bennis, Institute for Policy Studies)

Social Security: On Social Security, the American people are united. Seventy-nine percent of likely voters and 90 percent of likely Democratic voters favor increasing the program’s modest benefits. The Democratic Party is getting the message: 90 percent of the Senate Democratic caucus and over three-fifths of the House Democratic caucus have gone on record in support of expanding our Social Security system. Potential 2016 candidates Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley also enthusiastically support increased benefits. Senators Harry Reid and Elizabeth Warren have both called on the Democratic nominee to run on bold, populist economic ideas, including expanding Social Security. Now it’s Secretary Clinton’s turn to answer two critical questions: Do you support expanding our Social Security system? And will you commit to opposing any and all cuts to Social Security’s earned benefits? (Alex Lawson, Social Security Works)

Climate: The latest climate science says that humanity must leave roughly 80 percent of the earth’s remaining fossil fuels reserves in the ground to limit global temperature rise to 2 degrees, a goal the United States and other nations agreed at the Copenhagen summit in 2009 when you were secretary of state. But the whole point of fracking, an extraction method that enables drillers to reach previously inaccessible deposits, is to exploit that remaining 80 percent of reserves. By definition, does this fact not rule out fracking for any champion of climate action, and would you, as president, ban fracking? (Mark Hertsgaard)

Campaign finance: In the wake of Citizens United, our elections are now dominated by Big Money. A relative handful of super-rich individuals and giant corporations are funding the outside groups that are blasting the airwaves with vicious attack ads and defining the terms of elections. The American people are outraged by this state of affairs and demanding action. Sixteen states and 600 cities and towns have passed resolutions calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United; and last year a majority of the Senate voted in favor of a constitutional amendment. More than 1 million people have called on the Securities and Exchange Commission to issue a rule requiring corporations to disclose their political spending. Does candidate Clinton support a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, and will she advocate aggressively for one? Will Clinton endorse legislation that would replace our current, Big Money–dominated campaign finance system with one fueled by a combination of small donations and matching public monies? And, will Clinton advocate for campaign spending transparency reforms, including through legislation, at the SEC and through executive action? (Robert Weissman, Public Citizen)

Drug Policy: “Marijuana prohibition was born in racism and remains racist in its effects,” says Maia Szalavitz, an author and journalist who writes about neuroscience and addiction and who has noted that “marijuana laws are mainly enforced against black people.” Despite your frequent calls for more research, the scientific consensus (not to mention public opinion) is clear that pot is less harmful than alcohol, which is legal. President Obama agrees. Do you? Given pot laws’ unjust effects, would you push for an end to marijuana’s “flawed, outdated and unscientific” classification as a prohibited drug with no medical benefits, already belied by federal funding for research into its uses? (Ali Gharib)

Clinton is a cipher. The mass delusion she evokes among liberals and many feminists is just a function of her being a cipher -- you can read anything you want into her. God forbid we ever get to find out what opinions she really has, because they'll be way to the right of what anybody thinks.

(1)(0)

Rudipherousoxidesays:

April 16, 2015 at 12:52 am

She already has a long and troubling record, which is far more important than anything she might say while campaigning.

(1)(0)

Walterpewensays:

April 15, 2015 at 10:21 pm

One reason I am not fond of Hillary is how she seems to dislike questions, not all, but many. It shows in the way she reacts and explains herself: There typically is an attorney speaking rationally with a progressive bent. Sometimes there is an "I can't be bothered hawk." Even when she speaks on women's issues (possibly her strongest suit) I get the feeling she's wondering if she needs to go back and match her statements with her position papers. In short, a very contrived delivery in an era of it, like Jeb Bush only different. Contrast her with Geraldine Ferraro, sort of from the hip.

(1)(0)

Barbaramcdowellwhittsays:

April 15, 2015 at 10:07 pm

Since late February 2015 on Twitter @BarbaraMcDWhitt I've been promoting the idea that Condoleezza Rice should become a Democrat again and run with Hillary Clinton to become the first female administration. Rice was a Democrat until 1982 when she became a Republican because she disagreed with President Jimmy Carter's foreign policy. These two strong, smart women are more alike than different. As President George W. Bush's National Security Advisor, Rice supported Bush's desire to go to war in Iraq. As a U.S. Senator from New York, Clinton voted for war in Iraq. Both are lawyers and support equal rights and fair economics for the middle class. Clinton is pro-choice and Rice has said she is mildly pro-choice. Clinton and Rice should share the Democratic 2016 ticket, be elected to a 2017-21 first term, then re-elected in 2020.

(0)(2)

Barbaramcdowellwhittsays:

April 17, 2015 at 2:31 am

As of April 16, 2015 I will be promoting Condoleezza Rice and Elizabeth Warren to become the first female administration.

(0)(2)

Rudipherousoxidesays:

April 16, 2015 at 12:48 am

It would be very appropriate for Rice to be Hillary's running mate. And having lying, Empire and Zionism-serving Condoleezza Rice would be yet one more reason I'd never vote for Hillary.

(0)(0)

Google-61f0f1740c8a2a0d6d27f8515fe7fe19says:

April 15, 2015 at 3:31 am

There's only one question i would ask of Hilary Clinton:
How dare you run?!!!

(1)(0)

Google-61f0f1740c8a2a0d6d27f8515fe7fe19says:

April 15, 2015 at 3:27 am

There's only one question I would ask of Ms. Clinton:
How dare you run?!

(0)(0)

Ambrosiosilvajrsays:

April 15, 2015 at 3:15 am

If we want to be fair, most of the problems were created by the Bush administration;

(0)(1)

DHFabiansays:

April 15, 2015 at 10:21 am

No. We are living with the accumulation of bad policies going as far back as Reagan. The Clinton admin. took the steps that ensure that the US won't be able to recover this time. In a nutshell: From FDR to Reagan, the US had implemented a range of policies and programs that took the country to its height of wealth and productivity. From Reagan to Obama, the US reversed course, doing the exact opposite, ending those policies and programs. When Reagan was first elected, launching the campaign against our poor, the overall quality of life in the US was rated at #1 among all nations. By the time Obama was elected, this had already plunged to #43, and we can no longer adequately compete in the modern world market. In similar eras in the past, the poor and middle class, workers and the jobless, ultimately united to push back (against corporate power), to everyone's benefit. That can't happen this time, so the US will keep sinking like the Titanic.

(2)(0)

Disqus_p3WMoxP5Rnsays:

April 15, 2015 at 2:19 am

Run Warren, RUN!

(0)(0)

DHFabiansays:

April 15, 2015 at 10:28 am

Why? Seriously. She did say she absolutely isn't running, but I'm curious about on which issues you believe Warren would be a good president. Do you know what she would do about the Mideast crisis, or for that matter, our own poverty crisis? How would she stop US corporations from moving our jobs to the more successful nations? Does she have any ideas for significantly reducing motor vehicle traffic to reduce pollution? How would she deal with China's booming economy? What would she do about the increased militarism of Putin?

(1)(0)

Disqus_p3WMoxP5Rnsays:

April 15, 2015 at 6:51 pm

Since Warren is a much more open-minded American and caring about the interests of the American people than Clinton is Warren will do whatever is needed to solve these issues equitably for Americans. Clinton and her husband caused many of the problems that you cite. She is in no position to solve anything.

Clinton will do what she has always done, pander to the GOP and right-wing at the expense of the American people.

Clinton, the GOP and their Wall Street gangster bosses will do whatever they need to to rob us blind.

(0)(0)

Erpiusays:

April 14, 2015 at 11:20 pm

how principled! the so-called "progressives" are asking for (more) "declarations"...

as if hillary wouldn't say anything just to dupe the lesser people into going back to the ballot box to vote her in as the next pro-plutocratric by-bribe-only demoblicrat president.

in nov.2014 only 36% of all registered voters cast a ballot but dems said it was not their fault, and now these "centrists" even crow that the strategy is to woo back a "crucial!" part of the "landslide!" 19% that voted for the GOP then (one in five eligible voters).

but obama's continuation of the clintonites' protection racket for the criminally "savvy WS entrepreneurs" whom obama avowedly so much admires beat the lesser people's gullibility out of their systems for ages.

if warren doesn't run, voter turnout in 2016 will be 25%... and the GOP landslide will "reach 77%!" (i.e., still 19% of eligible voters).

(0)(0)

DHFabiansays:

April 15, 2015 at 11:17 am

Huh? Progressives aren't asking for any declarations. They tend to be the grownups who take time to read, to understand the issues, and to check the records of all candidates to see where they actually stand (as opposed to their campaign spiels).

The last few decades show that when the Dems jump to the right, they lose. We see that people haven't been "holding their noses and voting for the "lesser of the evils." They vote third party or withhold their votes. Withholding ones vote is not the same thing as not feeling like voting. Democrats and liberals have spent the last 6+ years deeply alienating the masses who had voted for Obama in hopes that we would start addressing our poverty crisis. If you were poor or disabled, who would you vote for? It's the Democrats who dismantled our former welfare aid, and began targeting Social Security.

Clinton is simply the pre-game show. With rare exception, the VP goes on to run for president. Joe Biden will reportedly launch his campaign later this summer. Any Dem pol, including Clinton, can challenge him for the nomination. Clinton cannot run for president, obviously, without first competing for the nomination.

The only way people can anticipate how 2016 might go for the Dems is by looking back at the last few elections, and then recognizing the critical issue that lib media won't touch (i.e., our poverty crisis). As concisely as possible: Clinton/Gore targeted the poor. In Gore vs. Bush, the poor (and those who get why unrelieved poverty is sinking the US) voted third party or withheld their votes, and the middle class picked Bush. Twice.The poor, etc., overwhelmingly voted for Obama in hopes that he could launch a legit discussion about our poverty crisis. Dems and libs aren't interested. Prior to the 2014 elections, we learned of Dem plans to arget Social Security again, specifically the disabled. We saw how that election turned out. The media marketed to libs went into overdrive to disappear Joe Biden and try to sell H. Clinton, with her LONG record of support for the right wing agenda. People aren't buying.

(1)(0)

Walterpewensays:

April 14, 2015 at 11:07 pm

Also, there are simple questions of personality here. That's why I'm backing Warren right now, even though I'm aware Hilary is ready for her close up. The karma with both the Clintons is way too complex, much of it shoved on them, but much self-inflicted. Most people are tired of it, the same way some (reasonable, believe it or not) Republicans are about the Bushes. Hilary leave me the feeling of endless complication, the same way every member of the Bush family does. They are interchangeable pieces to some degree.

(0)(0)

DHFabiansays:

April 15, 2015 at 11:37 am

Warren clearly stated that she won't run for the nomination. With rare exception, the VP goes on to run for president, and Joe Biden will be launching his campaign later in summer. Any Dem pol can challenge him for the nomination, of course.

Clinton has the best publicity money can buy, perhaps most notably from MSNBC. Note that since they started trying to sell Clinton, their rating have plunged. The Clintons aren't nearly as complex as some media try to claim. They have remained solid neoliberals -- pro-war, anti-New Deal, pro-corporate empowerment, etc. Please do the research (how she voted on specific issues, her speeches concerning those issues, etc.) Of particular importance to those over the age of 40 or so: B. Clinton was the first president to begin "reforming" Social Security the way he "reformed" our former welfare programs (i.e., out of existence), and there is no question that H. Clinton would pick up where B. left off, ending Social Security.

I strongly encourage likely voters to dump the campaign spiels, take the time to study the critical issues, and to read where potential candidates have stood on those issues.

(1)(0)

Blonderealistsays:

April 14, 2015 at 7:36 pm

Nice to see the comment section opened up -- have not seen that on The Nation for quite some time. Those questions for Hillary are fine for the most part -- and appropriate for any candidate.

As to the student debt crisis, I continue to be disappointed that progressives fail to talk about the high cost of college/university education. After all, there wouldn't be a student debt crisis if college costs had not increased a such a ridiculous rate (far above inflation) over the past 25 years.

As to expanding Social Security, Hillary (or any other candidate suggesting such an expansion) must also explain how the expansion will be financed.

As to education, the questions should not just be about charter schools draining money from other public schools or about high stakes testing -- the questions should be about improving the whole system -- especially schools in poor, urban communities. Failing public schools were in many cases failing before charter schools began draining money from them -- it's not just about money. Some charter schools are achieving great success -- and some are not. Same goes for public schools and in both cases we can find success stories about schools that serve poor communities. The conversation about improving education needs to shift more to how can those best practices be adapted and repeated at other schools.

(0)(0)

DHFabiansays:

April 15, 2015 at 11:54 am

I don't recall a day when student debt wasn't being discussed via media. How do you define, "expand Social Security"? Also, which part of Social Security? Social Security provides retirement,disability and survivors' benefits. Bill Clinton the first president to begin "reforming" (i.,e., cutting) Social Security, targeting the disabled. There is no question that H. Clinton would pick up where B. left off, doing to Social Security what B. did to our former welfare programs.

As I understand it, schools are largely financed by taxpayers in their districts. The number of poor/low-income distracts have increased in recent decades. We've known for decades that children who are hungry, and have economically-distressed families, usually have great difficulties concentrating in school. Especially since the 1990s, we have chosen to increase and worsen poverty, even with the knowledge that this continues making the US less able to compete in the modern world market.

(1)(0)

Blonderealistsays:

April 15, 2015 at 8:32 pm

I agree that student debt has been a frequent news topic for a while. My point is that more attention should be paid to the costs of college tuition, which have increased far above inflation over the past 25 years. Many critics (conservatives, Libertarians) argue that the mess is mostly a product of bad federal government planning. Public universities show little (or no) interest in controlling their costs. College administrators know they can ask for more and more money because students will take out more loans. Making loans cheaper may well end up providing perverse incentives. Do colleges need to hire more administrators, build fancier stadiums and nicer dormitories?

Your questions about expanding Social Security are good ones -- and the article is pretty vague on that point. Whatever expansions are suggested should indeed be defined. Even if we don't have the specifics, it's clear that the expansion will cost more money, which is why I would like to see details on financing the expansion.

You are right about public (K-12) schools being largely financed by taxes collected in their local districts -- and that's one of the many things that needs to be considered when working towards improving the system.

(0)(0)

Harrietmullaneysays:

April 14, 2015 at 7:00 am

re: Latin America - What is Secretary Clinton's position on allowing South/Central America and Mexico to determine their own futures independent of U.S. intrusion? How willing is she to take responsibility for the U.S.'s influence on the rise of the massive drug cartels? Is she willing to take ownership of U.S. militarization, particularly in Honduras, and put an end to it? Would she only endorse aid packages that include restrictions to local economies but benefits for transnational corporations? Will she explain her support of the 2009 coup in Honduras and the ensuing illegitimate elections? Does she consider Latin America the U.S.'s "backyard?"

(0)(0)

Toddtelfordsays:

April 14, 2015 at 12:25 am

As much as there is to loathe about Hillary's positions on fracking, Wall Street, and militarism, come fall of 2016 if she's the nominee we have to be universal in our support for electing her. The alternative is a Republican president who will run out the clock on reacting to global climate disruption, appoint more right-wing judges to the Supreme Court, and coddle only the UPtrodden. If we are to mitigate Hillary's Neo-liberalism, let's put a candidate like Bernie Sanders beside her on the debate floor and let the vast support for his views tilt her more to the left over the next year. Look how Obama shifted his stand on gay marriage. That was through the weight of public opinion. That's where we need candidate Clinton to go.

(3)(0)

Tricia100says:

April 18, 2015 at 1:07 pm

The "lesser of two evils" approach only brings us further and further to the right. Look what the last 20 years has brought us. There is little difference in economic and foreign policy issues between the Dems and Repubs. Sanders will have little effect on a President Hillary.
If you want meaningful change and candidates who truly represent the average person, you have to go third party, like the Greens or socialist. The Democratic Party has to learn that if it continually screws its base it will lose power, which is all it cares about.
I will never vote for Hillary. She is indistinguishable from a Repub on issues that count the most, economic and foreign policy.
What is her position on the Trans Pacific trade agreement?

(0)(0)

Seconnecticutsays:

April 14, 2015 at 6:01 am

Republicans have produced political stalemate, extreme inequality, and
climate disruption and are oblivious to our low rank in national
well-being: poverty, inequality, democracy, education, social mobility,
infrastructure, health, environment, militarization, etc. Their 'values'
are about money, corporate profits, and the projection of national power.

Larry Bartels found that “the real incomes of middle class families have
grown twice as fast under Democrats as they have under Republicans,
while the real incomes of working poor families have grown six times as
fast under Democrats as they have under Republicans.”

James Gilligan observes that violent deaths (murder and suicides) are
strongly correlated with Republican Presidencies.

Gilens and Page concluded the US is an oligopoly, that Congress sides
with the wealthy, not the people. They write “ ... even when fairly
large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not
get it. “ Accordingly, Republicans' budget is about the opposite of what
people would want.

Republicans started this Congress trying to privatize Social Security,
making Medicare a voucher system, repealing the Affordable Care Act,
cutting food stamps, food safety, student loans, and Veterans benefits.
But they increased funding for nuclear weapons, the military, and give
the very wealthy huge tax breaks.
Be careful who you elect.

http://www.seconnecticut.com/vetorepublicans.html

(0)(0)

Disqus_hlOX769TG4says:

April 13, 2015 at 8:18 pm

Please, give me ONE realistic reason why she would restrict fracking when it was her cash-cow she sold around the world?

(3)(0)

Disqus_1oZo9FgAPZsays:

April 13, 2015 at 5:07 am

Wait, no questions about Privacy? I am a Clinton fan, but I hope she feels a need to address the loss of American's privacy, especially as she feels a strong need for her OWN privacy (her own Server)... I think this is a huge issue.

(1)(1)

Sethweinersays:

April 12, 2015 at 10:02 pm

Mens' Rights: Hillary, did you not say, at a feminist conference in South America, that 'women have always been the primary victims of war,' and not the men that have always been the ones to die? Do you believe that it is the purpose of men to be expendable fodder and disposable utilities?

(5)(0)

Jsdesquireresurrectedsays:

April 12, 2015 at 7:01 pm

This Hilary Clinton woman has turned into one of those minor annoyances that I characterise thusly: Hilary Clinton, Nikki Mirage, Wolf Blitzer, exempli gratia, are all NAMES, I know. But I don't know who they are, I am wholly unfamiliar with their respective oeuvres and they have no impact on my life and I resent myself for allowing my brain to waste space with the names

(2)(0)

Robinmessing78says:

April 12, 2015 at 6:51 pm

Eleven Questions Hillary Clinton needs to answer about Haim Saban

http://themessinglink.com/Haim_Saban

Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson were two of the biggest stars of the show at the Israeli-American Council's first conference in November. Adelson, as you may recall,once advocated that the U.S. should start nuclear negotiations with Iran by dropping a nuke on an Iranian desert and threatening to nuke Tehran if Iran didn't roll over and give the U.S. and Israel everything they wanted. Saban, a multi-billionaire who has been one of the Democratic party's biggest donors, has pledged to "give as much as needed" to get Hillary Clinton elected president. His stance on the Iranian nuclear talks was a bit more moderate than Adelson's. To his credit, he didn't advocate that we nuke Iran. He did, however say that if he were Bibi Netanyahu and if he felt the deal would threaten Israel’s existence, "I would bomb the living daylights out of those sons of bitches."

Given that Saban may be Hillary's biggest donor and that he is in a position to whisper sweet nothings in her ear, Hillary Clinton needs to be asked the following questions at every opportunity. Failure to ask, and get a straight answer, on these questions could well lead the U.S. into a war that is not in our best interests.

1.If US analysts disagree with Bibi Netanyahu on whether a deal will prevent Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons, who will she believe?

2.Does she agree with Saban that Israel should bomb Iran if it doesn't like the deal that the U.S. and the rest of the G5+1 nations strikes with it?

3.If she does agree with Saban, does she think the U.S. should follow Israel into war with Iran?

4.If Israel asks for our help after launching an attack on Iran because it finds that it can not simultaneously fight Iran and repress a Third Intifada at home, will she send U.S. soldiers into combat to save Israel?

5.President Obama obviously does not want to get into a war with Iran unless it is absolutely necessary for U.S. national security. Does she think Israel should have more say in U.S. national security interests than President Obama?

6.Does she believe that the Israeli tail should be able to wag the U.S. dog?

7.If U.S. and Israeli national security interests are in conflict, whose interests will she serve?

8.If she does not agree with Saban, will she denounce him for urging Israel to go against international consensus and U.S. national security interests by bombing Iran?

9.Will she guarantee that she will never make Haim Saban part of her cabinet or a national security advisor?

10.At the same convention that Saban made his remarks about bombing Iran, Sheldon Adelson acknowledged that Israel was becoming less and less of a democracy. This did not bother Adelson who stated: "So Israel won't be a democratic state, so what?" It did not bother Adelson that Israel was moving away from democracy because democracy was not mentioned in the Torah. Would she, like Adelson and probably Saban, still support Israel if Israel became an undemocratic apartheid regime?

11.Adelson and Saban threatened to buy the New York Times because they did not like its reporting on Israel. Does she consider this a healthy development for U.S. democracy and national security? If not, what would she do to stop it?

(1)(0)

Eliyahu100says:

April 12, 2015 at 7:18 pm

Once upon a time, the so-called "Left" and "progressives" were the people most concerned about nuclear weapons proliferation. But today, self-styled Leftists and progressives seem to view with equanimity the prospect of clerical fascist Iran obtaining The Bomb. Do you think that Kerry's Lausanne agreement, that is not so much of an agreement, will stop Iran from getting The Bomb? Do Kerry and Obama even intend to stop an Iranian Bomb? Why should we trust Administration and Establishment "experts" who praise the Lausanne non-accord over Israeli and French experts, and a number of important Arab leaders, as well as more independent American experts who are extremely skeptical over the value of this non-accord? Do you take Obama and Kerry at their word no questions asked?

Are you aware that after Netanyahu's speech to the Congress, several important Arab journalists openly expressed agreement with his speech?

(0)(0)

Robinmessing78says:

April 14, 2015 at 3:30 pm

No matter what course we take, there is no 100%
guarantee that Iran will not get a nuclear weapon. Those who advocate against
negotiations (and it isn't just Obama negotiating with Iran--it's the P5+1)
could just as likely be the fools who set us on a path towards a nuclear Iran.

Think about it. An international sanctions
regime was instituted to get Iran to the bargaining table. If the U.S. trashes
negotiations and is seen as responsible for the collapse of negotiations then
other countries are not likely to keep the sanctions up. If the sanctions
regime collapses then we face an alternative--Iran will get nukes (if they
actually want them), or we have to go to war to prevent them from getting them.

And if we go to war, Iran will do everything it
can to get nukes. And the only way we can prevent them from doing so is putting
boots on the ground and occupying Iran indefinitely. A war with Iran and its
subsequent occupation will be MUCH harder than war with Iraq. And sooner or
later, the U.S. will get tired of having its soldiers used as target practice
in Iran and end its occupation. And then it's full steam ahead for the Iranian
nuclear weapons program.

(0)(0)

Erpiusays:

April 12, 2015 at 3:37 pm

among the few legally actionable news in the wikileaks releases is that h.clinton committed a felony by conspiring to undermine the enforcement of an american law and by suppressing a well-argued and documented denunciation by a usa government official (in the honduras embassy of the usa) that a fact punished by american law, a coup d'etat against a democracy, had taken place.

furthermore why does the nation forgets haiti? a further question should be:

do you --and your hubby-- intend to continue the "usa regency for haiti's misery" that has included;

"triumphing in democracy building through rigged elections"TM when hillary (+slick willie) excluded from haiti's presidential election the most popular candidate and sure winner --former, usa-deposed president aristide-- bcse "the usa says so!" (and not for nothing she had obama flash-dispatch an aircraft carrier there "to help with the
earthquake!").

Iran, Russian and China should proceed to their respective bunkers when she takes the Throne.

On the domestic front, she is an unrepentant no-liberal economic ideologue. Wall Street adamantly approves of HRC and why not?

Binder, Summers, Rubin, Orszag etc. are all economic advisors to her, which if you don't know who these people are and what they stand for, you really should. (They are NOT your friends)

(7)(0)

ConnieHinesDorothyProvinesays:

April 12, 2015 at 8:32 am

#16: How do you respond to the UN's condemnations of Israel's policies?

(5)(0)

Danielembodysays:

April 12, 2015 at 6:51 am

Here is a question for Hillary Clinton - would you favor lowering the eligibility age for Medicare to 62? The first reason is plain commen sense - if one can collect non-disability Social Security at age 62, why not be able to be on Medicare at that age too? The second reason is also commen sense - for any medical insurance plan, I would think that bringing in younger people (age 62 to 64) who can pay for the older people would be what any insurance actuary would be crying for. The only people I can think of who would oppose it are the people who would try to eliminate Medicare all together. We all know where they are coming from. So what it is going to be? Will you do something for seniors?

(5)(0)

Jo6pacsays:

April 13, 2015 at 2:41 am

Or lower the age to when you are born.

(1)(0)

White_applesays:

April 12, 2015 at 6:29 am

Someone needs to question her and the Clinton foundation's eDiplomacy and TechCamp - per Brookings
The transformative goals of ediplomacy
#6 Internet Freedom "promoting freedom of speech and democracy as well as undermining authoritarian regimes
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2012/3/ediplomacy-hanson/03_ediplomacy_hanson.pdf
Not to mention the connection to Forum for the Future, Microsoft and others
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/nov/131234.htm
http://fcw.com/articles/2012/12/04/noel-dickover-techcamp.aspx
Just love their corporate US Sponsors
http://www.forumforthefuture.org/our-members
Just take a look at the TechCamp's Impact map and you'll get the idea, you'll even see Ukraine... (both one in 2012 & 2013)
https://api.tiles.mapbox.com/v4/techcampglobal.7u45z5mi/page.html?access_token=pk.eyJ1IjoidGVjaGNhbXBnbG9iYWwiLCJhIjoieE9UcXM2QSJ9.nsh9bXwT66g9sxltBOaWQA#2/0.0/0.0
http://ukraine.usembassy.gov/events/techcamp-2013-kyiv.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9hOl8TuBUM
and let's not forget the $10 million the Clinton Foundation has received from Ukraine
http://redpilltimes.com/hillary-clintons-paid-lobbying-effort-to-push-for-lethal-aid-in-ukraine-may-actually-be-what-is-stopping-obama-from-signing-off-on-lethal-aid/
Tired of seeing how many ways she's using the State Dept for her own ends frankly.

(2)(0)

Disqus_bdZyiNCXfrsays:

April 12, 2015 at 6:10 am

Is the mass delusion that liberals have with Hillary Clinton so widespread...so entrenched...that they (liberals) feel that Clinton should, at this point, "answer questions" and "come clear on issues"?

Can anyone seriously believe that a Clinton Presidency would be anything but an unmitigated disaster for every cause that progressives hold dear?

How many times must Hillary Clinton betray the hopes and aspirations of progressives that support her...how many times must she betray them before we finally come to the painful conclusion that supporting her presidential aspirations would lead to catastrophic consequences?

Was it not Clinton ( in her role as Secretary of State) that supported neo-conservative Victoria Nuland through out the process that culminated in the coup d'etat in Ukraine?

How much longer can progressives tolerate supporting WALL STREET DEMOCRATS like Hillary Clinton?

(10)(0)

Disqus_LUsrdUvuhrsays:

April 13, 2015 at 7:42 pm

Hillary's time has passed. She should be a hero to the movement and step aside. We need Elizabeth Warren. That may not be what the democratic party wants, but that's what the progressives want.

This is the last or one of the last chances for the democratic party to show that it is for people instead of politics.

(1)(0)

Michtomsays:

April 14, 2015 at 1:20 am

A hero to WHAT movement?!?

(0)(0)

TAmericasays:

April 13, 2015 at 10:12 am

Thank you! I'm tired of "progressives" pretending that Hillary can be anything but herself: a neo-liberal. Look at her political and personal history! Look at the Clinton Foundation money trail! It doesn't matter that she "quit" the foundation; she still benefits (and so do its contributors) via her husband and daughter. Look at the incredible lengths she went to to hide incriminating emails! Think about the fact that Bill returns to the White House if she wins. My god, Hillary Clinton is a progressive's worst nightmare! Wake up!

(5)(0)

Facebook-100003338245557says:

April 13, 2015 at 4:20 am

Re: "...Can anyone seriously believe that a Clinton Presidency would be anything but an unmitigated disaster for every cause that progressives hold dear?" {bluto}

I'm a retired 'disaster professional'; (22 years...putting food on the table / a roof over-head, doin' the old '911-first-responder-career' thing...), so...
I'll 'respond' to this issue:

I can't think of enough negative things to say about either / both Clintons, despite having voted for (Monica's) Clinton, (once!), and still make a sentence that one can read in less than, say, 5 years; ...that noted, and as bad as I think the Clintons, (alone or singly), are...

When one reflects on what two Pro_Lifers did, (Geo. W. 'Plausibly, Denied' Bush / Tony, 'Collateral's, Damaged' Blair), to intentionally create / profit, economically N politically, from 'Iraq, L.L.C.', coupled with the utterly, (fantastically!!), bizarre way the 'Todd Akin orchestra' sings, hoping to gain public support for forcing rape survivors to carry rape-products to term...I just CAN'T imagine NOT voting for the Clintons; aka: the less dangerous candidate(s)!!

She should be facing questions from a prosecutor, not from The Nation.

(6)(1)

Jo6pacsays:

April 13, 2015 at 2:39 am

That's for Sure, along with everyone else over the past yrs.

(2)(0)

Disqus_AtqgJiqAjnsays:

April 12, 2015 at 3:29 am

Nothing on the NSA, mass surveillance, civil liberties, drone killings, the war on whistleblowers, or prosecuting the Bush and Obama administrations for war crimes? Time for another draft…

(7)(0)

Disqus_AtqgJiqAjnsays:

April 12, 2015 at 10:02 am

Wait, she was part of one of those administrations. Maybe she should be facing questions from a tribunal, instead.

(6)(0)

White_applesays:

April 12, 2015 at 6:54 am

Or the $10mil from Ukraine to the Clinton Foundation.

(5)(0)

Walterpewensays:

April 12, 2015 at 4:05 am

True. Just shows how far out of citizens' control we are now. If you had put this out for even the moderates of the middle class in the 1960's they would not have believed it. I think people allowed it to happen once the country became a casino during the 1980's. I remember people saying things like "I'm not worried" about the federal government who were previously pretty aware. It's as if once we took that first step backward with Reagan, otherwise sensible people tuned out, even without drugs, lol.

(0)(0)

Walterpewensays:

April 12, 2015 at 3:20 am

Well, that's asking mostly all the right questions. Personally, I believe it is time for the electorate to look at our situation as something akin to 1932. Not to romanticize it, but to accept that where we are is going to require government to start creating radical solutions for the thirty five years of oblivion we've been in. These are all the right issues which were not addressed during the pillaging of the country that started in 1980 and is going on basically unabated. Cliché, but oh so true. And now HRC is at bat.
Can she do it? Her Republican roots are very glaring on the economy. Her stance on defense is not so much traditional Republican but more like her own twisted vision. Funny how she is the hawk that a military man like Kerry could never be. Personally, I say wait and see. Hope she comes through. Maybe in time we could actually grow fond of her. You never know.